To my understanding, we debate because we believe what we know is correct and others are not, and we try to convert others to our beliefs. In debating, there is a winner and a loser.

Yes, that is how things go in debates. The loser changes his view for better views and he will eventually arrive at right view. At that point, he will not lose debates any more.

In sharing and discussing ideas, we do not fix into what we understand because we believe they may not be correct and we should change them if we can find better ideas. There is no winner or loser in discussing ideas. If others believe in what we say, it's OK, but this does not always mean that we are correct. If not, we should also learn to see why and find out our mistakes if any.

But how is the person going to traverse "the jungle of views, the thicket of views, the desert of views" if he is never debating, just discussing with people with similar views to his own like on reddit ?

We always want to learn from others who hold different views. They are our best teachers. However, if we focus on winning a debate, we will lose our opportunity to learn from others. Moreover, if we come to debate, we come with a fixed view, and it is hard to change.

On the contrary. Those who come to a debate, come in order to perfect their views and maybe change them if they find one that makes more sense. In the times of the Buddha, if somebody lost a debate all his followers converted to the person who won the debate. On the other hand, those who are afraid of debates are afraid to change their views. They are not interested in arriving at right view. They don't take the spiritual path seriously. They just want to feel comfortable and are not willing to do any efforts or suffer from time to time in order to make real progress.

That is true of anyone who is clinging to their views, which is all the more reason not to introduce any measures which attempt to socially engineer any conformity in view.

If anyone wishes to ask a question and be confident that they're only receiving valid Theravada-oriented responses, I suggest they try the Discovering Theravada section, or if they're exclusively interested in the "classical" perspective, try the Classical Theravada section.

Metta,
Paul.

Most of us are clinging to views, that why we should somehow need to find a way not to engage in fixed views. This is the reason I prefer discussion than debate. In discussion, we do not say others are wrong or right. We only present our idea and it is up to them to decide if they accept it or not.

One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

It is so difficult to change rigid views even in a strong debate. Imagine how hard it is to change rigid views in a simple discussion. It's basically impossible. Losing a debate is always hard on the ego. People of today have much more bigger egos than people in the times of the Buddha. A normal person feel good and enthusiastic after losing a debate because he has found better views that will help him progress faster on the path. Just like a chess player is eager to find his flaws in order to improve his chess game. A person with a very big ego is not interested in improving himself and is too concerned with the hurtful feeling of losing a debate so he might even withdraw from debates because of this fear.

They say: “In our Dharma purity’s found”
but deny that it is found in the Dharma of others.
On what they depend they say “it’s the best”,
and so settle down in their individual truths.

Those disputants into the assembly rush,
and perceive opposedly “the other” as a fool.
But in disputes, on others they rely—
these so-called experts ever-loving praise.

Engrossed in conflict midst the assembly,
fearing defeat, they wish only for praise,
having been refuted, that one’s truly confused,
angry at blame seeks weakness in the other.

“Through investigation is your argument
refuted and destroyed”—so they say.
That one grieves and laments—that mere arguer,
“Oh! I am overcome” that person wails.

Arisen among monks—those controversies
among them cause both elation and depression.
Refrain therefore, from disputation!
No meaning’s in it save the prize of praise.

Praised in the midst of the assembly
for the presentation of arguments,
then that one laughs, or else is haughty.
So they say, “Conceited by winning debate”.

Though haughtiness will be ground for a downfall,
still proudly that one speaks, and with arrogance:
this having seen, refrain from disputations—
not by that is there purity, so the skilled say.

Just as a strong man, fed
upon royal food, might roar forth,
wishing for a champion rival,
but finds from the first there’s nought to fight.

Those holding a view and disputing, say thus:
“This alone is the truth”, so they aver;
then reply to them: “But no one’s here
to retaliate through disputation”.

They continue with their practice, offering no opposition
against others, offering no view opposed to view.
But then, Pasūra, what would you obtain?
For them there is nothing to be grasped as the highest.

As you’ve come here, in your mind
thinking and speculating on various views,
you have met with a Washed One
But will not be able to make progress with him.

One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

It is not difficult to have a fruitful discussion between opposing views, to comment or give a teaching in a way moderated according to the Suttas. People have to beforehand agree upon definitions of key concepts and what is known as true and that which isnt, if the topic for discussion is one of the approved topics by the Buddha it is a good way to communicate and discuss/debate(can be said to be same thing in this context) the Dhamma. I would like to train in this way, the Supreme Teacher has said that in such discussion a person will be known as worth talking to or not. If people want to engage in a less formal or a more unwholesome discussion they should be free to do so but there should be a platform for people to make serious claims or engage in Right Discussion on a Theravada Dhamma forum, we have several Suttas with clear rules to enforce and guidelines to follow and it is all very well applicable to internet forum format.
IE if someone is promoting suspect view as right view or a troll, he may be quickly referred to the moderated format if he wanted to discuss it.

Popularity wouldn't be an issue, but helping people out would be encouraged. Most importantly, it would be feedback to show people who take time out of their day and week to write posts to help people out. If you find out what you write helps people, it shows you are doing something worthwhile, and it motivates you the continue. On the contrary, not getting feedback (because people don't really give any or don't want to disrupt the conversation) results in not wanting to invest time in something which seems to not help anyone at all.

Ego rewards are a powerful and cheap motivation. But those who really are about helping others will do it without ego rewards.

It's not about "ego rewards." You barely read what I wrote. It's about getting feedback that what you are posting is helping people out, rather than that it seems like no one is reading your (well-written/well-thought out) posts.

A forum isn't face-to-face communication. There is no body language to base yourself on. When I find that someone got something out of what I wrote, I feel like the 15-30 minutes I took to write the post was worthwhile. Having no body language—or any form of feedback whatsoever for that matter—is demotivating to write more. At least, that is how I experience forums and other similar online interaction. This is the main reason why I closed my blog and participate less on forums (if no one is getting anything out of my posts—or even reading them—what is the point of taking the time to write them and post them in the first place).

The moderator on the Vivaldi Forums deleted some posts to encourage a user with a lot of downvotes. This is by far the best way to reduce disruption - remove the offensive comments that caused it. Other forums often just lock threads, leaving all of the offensive comments, with no chance for anyone to refute the false allegations made. They then start new threads, and so it goes on.

I strongly believe that adding a '+' or 'thumbs up' button would be very beneficial.

I hope that the moderators are considering adding this feature.

"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self."

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Other forums often just lock threads, leaving all of the offensive comments, with no chance for anyone to refute the false allegations made. They then start new threads, and so it goes on.

To my experience, this is the approach of the mods on our sister-forum, DharmaWheel, and I have similar critiques of that approach.

如無為，如是難見、不動、不屈、不死、無漏、覆蔭、洲渚、濟渡、依止、擁護、不流轉、離熾焰、離燒然、流通、清涼、微妙、安隱、無病、無所有、涅槃。Like this is the uncreated, like this is that which is difficult to realize, with no moving, no bending, no dying. Utterly lacking secretions and smothered in the dark, it is the island shore. Where there is ferrying, it is the crossing. It is dependency's ceasing, it is the end of circulating transmissions. It is the exhaustion of the flame, it is the ending of the burning. Flowing openly, pure and cool, with secret subtlety, and calm occultation, lacking ailment, lacking owning, nirvāṇa.Asaṁskṛtadharmasūtra, Sermon on the Uncreated Phenomenon, T99.224b7, Saṁyuktāgama 890

The problem with up and down votes is that it creates the potential for a runaway positive feedback loop - which can go very well, if people treat it properly, or very badly, if they don't.

I think just like with announcements of attainments, we should let each person make their own judgement based on the outward behaviour of the subject. 'Reputation' tells you nothing but what others thought, and what they thought has no necessary correlation with fact.

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

Pseudobabble wrote:...we should let each person make their own judgement...

Well said. In these technologically-aided times of echo-chambers and groupthink, the skill of being able to independently make up your own mind on matters, and go against the grain where necessary, is vitally important to maintaining intellectual and spiritual autonomy.

A simple upvote downvote system like on the Vivaldi forums works well. I receive notifications for upvotes, but not for downvotes. The vote count for each post indicates how popular the feature request is. Here, it would be a vote for the quality of the reply. If someone gets a lot of downvotes, others will soon realise that they are not worth paying attention to.

More complex system like on the old Serif forums count posts as well as reputation votes. As the post count passes certain thresholds you get a new label like Guru, Master, Expert, etc., while the reputation votes add up to green squares (or red squares if someone only makes negative posts).

Simpler is better IMO. Everyone should understand that it's just a rough guide to knowledge or behaviour, as any reputation system. I know two monks with an OBE. One thoroughly deserved it, the other did not.

On our russian theravada forum we made "Only Upvotes" system, there is no "Downvote" button at all. Reputation (N of votes received) is shown just below the avatar near the N of posts. Works good. Usually good posters have 2:1 proportion (like ~2 votes per 1 message). Trolls and non-buddhists - vice versa, like 1 vote per 2 or even 3-4 messages. People who argue too much, but who are generally buddhists, have ~1:1 proportion.

Upvotes can be grinded by grinding posts but the post to likes ratio can not be grinded without cheating and such cheating would require a rediculous amount of effort.

I think all the evidence points to an upvote system encouraging posting helpful comments and discouraging a lot of the disruptive/negative type of posts.